I read an article recently that suggested conferences were full of lobbyists and the like and that the party members were on the decline. Would explain the rapture if the audience is stacked with them.

It's shit like this that has made the always-existing split in the party even more apparent, has led to tumbling membership as the social democrats jump ship (noticeably to the Greens). The way that the Economic Liberal side of the party have been riding roughshod over the social democrat side (there's not a single social democrat in the coalition, they're all economic liberals) is destroying the party. It's losing its grass roots support - both from the student body which has been our bread and butter, but also from long-term members that were around before the 80s merger.

Sometimes these days I look at the party and I really, really wonder why I still pay my membership fee. The party has moved so far away from our core values, whilst paying nothing more than lip service to try and keep the grass roots on side, that I get genuinely angry sometimes. The only thing keeping me in right now is the hope that by the time of the next election we will have a new leader (Clegg himself hasn't said he will definitely be representing us), and my certainty that we will end up with anther hung parliament, another coalition (I reckon lib-lab this time), and that the shit we've experienced with all the treachery from the tories and our own economic-liberal wankstains joining them will lead to a more social-democratic presence in a labour coalition.

In answer to Psychotext's earlier question about applause for Clegg - they've taken to filling out the rows and being a bit canny with who gets to sit on which row. Our membership has more than halved since the GE. I doubt we could fill the conference by ourselves anyway these days, given the damage that clegg has caused to our reputation.

The only thing I can say in defense of most Lib-Dems (well, at least the ones that I've had contact with) is that Clegg and the shit we're being blamed for in coalition bears very little relation to what the larger body of the party feels comfortable with.

Also - that was a really, really shit line about needing yellow to turn to blue into green (while possibly being an acknowledgement that we're losing members to that total non-party)

Another thing to answer Psychotext's earlier question about why so many people were applauding Nick pleb (oooh look at me, aren't I topical):

Party conferences tend to be backslapping exercises. Oh look how good we are, etc. Given that fact, it is understandable that party members who are less than satisfied with the way the party has been headed since coalition will be less inclined to attend. Therefore, you end up with a disproportionate amount of Clegg supporters = a (misleading) impression that we are still in the whole "I agree with Nick" love in within the party (when in actuality he has presided over the most disastrous period in the history of the unified party)

disusedgenius wrote:
Hehe. Amazing how the 'most disastrous period' coincides with the 'actually having some power' period.

There's that, admittedly. But it also coincides with lowest party membership in our history, lowest poll ratings since we were first founded as a merged party, an absolute massacre in the local elections (which we traditionally do quite well in), huge internal arguments that, at least philosophically, are splitting the party back into Social Democrats vs Liberals (fwiw, I would side with the former if it came to an actual split), MASSIVE unhappiness around the whole tuition fees thing (we really should have enshrined that in the coalition agreement), etc etc.

Therein lies the rub - we're back in govt for the first time in a century, but in a situation that has, ironically, severely damaged our status.

We scored an own goal with Tuition fees - which pissed off the party faithful as much as the electorate, believe me. Then the Tories played dirty by spreading utter lies about AV during the referendum, which did us no favours either. Then on top of that, we have ended up in the annoying situation where we end up announcing all the bad news. I'd say the Cable-Murdoch thing hurt us, but actually I think it granted us a degree of respect if anything given the current climate around the press. And then we have Nick fucking Clegg grasping at straws left right and centre and coming across as increasingly desperate. Our members in government are so scared of disrupting the coalition (not that it's stopping the Tory cunts next door) that we aren't making enough noise about what we HAVE achieved. Hell, I've lost count of the amount of times people on this very forum have asked what LD policies have been enacted in coalition. Clegg needs more backbone to stand up for the party and fight fire with fire against the fucking snakes we've ended up in bed with. I doubt he will though, because if the Tories get the boundary changes, Clegg loses his constituency and his only option to stay relevant will be to defect.

FWIW I think we will remain in govt after the next GE. The tories have been hit by so many scandals (as seems to be the pattern) and are deeply unpopular due to their extensive public service cuts (as seems to be the pattern) and revelations that despite claiming they've changed a large number of them are just as elitist as ever (as seems to be,,, you get the idea) that I dont see them realistically gaining a majority. On the other hand, I don't see the public forgiving Labour for their misadministration during their tenure and Red Ed doesn't strike me as a credible leader. So I will be very surprised if either of them get a majority next time round, which will result in us once again holding the balance of power.

nd we would be fucking mad to go back with the Tories after all the backstabbing they've already inflicted on us just halfway through this parliament.

I'd say that Cable would end up replacing Clegg, but given his age I don't see him being a credible PM and given his comments around the SKY-Murdoch thing, I don't think he will be seen as impartial enough. Nethertheless, all the fingers point to having him replace Clegg.

Could be worse. Could be Chris Hughne. Thankfully, his ex-wife got wind and nipped that one in the bud before it became anything meaningful.

I'm always amazed that anyone can think that tripling student fees made students better off. I mean, even if they knew nothing of the details it so obviously can't be true that you'd think (hope?) that they'd question how this is meant to work.

I don't think we'll see Kennedy back (maybe in a justice role?). Shoe-ins for Clegg replacements atm seem to be Ashdown or Cable. Hughne fancied his chances, but his wife soon put paid to that,

As much as I respect them, I don't see the electorate really getting on board with more elderly politicians as a possible PM. We've had a very long stretch with relatively young PMs, and if anything we have become incredibly youth-biased in general.

Personally, I'd like to see Simon Hughes as leader, Cable as chancellor, Menzies Campbell as home secretary. I think Hughes would make a great party leader.

The odds of Clegg surviving as party leader after this parliament are slim indeed. Hell, even he seems to understand that.

tldr: "It is crap policy. Why did they do it? Answer: because of this accounting wheeze."

This is the bit I really don't like:

As the size of the loan book swells, and if the government decides that it wants to recoup money faster, borrowers could look like a relatively easy target. This is a concern that has been raised by McGettigan and the National Union of Students. The terms and conditions of student loans can be changed without primary legislation, McGettigan explains.

"Don't worry about it!" "You might never have to pay it back!" "It's the cheapest loan you can get!" and other such soothing words were often chucked around about these loans, which is the same sort of language you used to hear from financial experts (salesmen) and on daytime TV adverts encouraging borrowing. Circumstances always change, and big debts leave you vulnerable to change.

I am certain that the T+C's of this scheme will change, leaving a lot of young people with expensive debt for life, before they even get a chance to get into more debt via a mortgage. Entire adult lives stuck in debt, for want of a decent education.

I really, really fucking hate Marxist/Communist posters. I'm left wing in most economic and social areas, but I hate seeing these posters from those very far on the left wing spectrum. I wonder when reading them if they've watched one too many movies when you see phrases like "TAKE DOWN THE GOVERNMENT!", "REVOLT!", "FIGHT AND TOPPLE THE FASCIST BRITISH GOVT!".

What the hell is wrong with these people? Do they really think these kind of posters have a chance in hell of convincing anyone else but radicals? Maybe this kind of mad, fervent chest-beating would have worked to amass people in the 18th/19th centuries, but it simply cannot work in any sort of stable first world country.

I guess this is why societies like the Fabian Society exist, but it annoys me these people seem to stuck in the past...

They're just excluded — the political debate in this country is concentrated on a narrow spectrum around the centre. Most people adopt these centrist positions unquestioningly, as they're inculcated in them by the school system and the corporate media. They're basically the views of an elite ruling class that doesn't give a fuck about you.

Vaarna wrote:
They're just excluded — the political debate in this country is concentrated on a narrow spectrum around the centre. Most people adopt these centrist positions unquestioningly, as they're inculcated in them by the school system and the corporate media. They're basically the views of an elite ruling class that doesn't give a fuck about you.

Fight the power, mang.

Don't know about the whole inculcate thing. Most people I knew growing up were very at ends with the main political powers and were heavily invested in quite far left ideas (I guess this is true of most youth) although rarely something like communism.

On a wide level, I think the government should support those who need help by using tax money such that all of society contributes to the needy.

On a more personal level, I can't count how many times in my life I've came across people who are clearly just exploiting the benefits system and do nothing but take from society whilst not giving a single thing back, and being proud of this. I'd love to see benefits removed from those people, as they've infuriated me so much.